RSS chief pays tribute to Gauri Lankesh, Dharam Singh

Bengaluru, Jun 22: Concerned over the increase in COVID-19 cases in the city, Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Monday directed officials to implement lockdown measures strictly in the clusters which have reported more infections.

Yediyurappa held a meeting with Ministers and senior officials regarding containing COVID-19 in Bengaluru and said it can be achieved only if preventive measures are implemented strictly and asked the officials to work in this direction.

"Lockdown shall be implemented strictly in the clusters which reported more cases, especially, K.R. Market and surrounding areas such as Siddapura, VV Puram, Kalasipalya etc. It was decided to seal the adjoining streets, where the cases are reported, a release from the Chief Minister's office said. Stringent action would be taken against those who violate quarantine norms and FIR would be filed if necessary, it said.

Till Sunday evening, the state capital has reported 1,272 cases of COVID-19, including 64 deaths and 411 discharges. On Sunday, as many as 196 fresh cases were recorded. Officers were directed to ensure hygiene and provide other basic amenities to the people who were quarantined in the social welfare department's hostels and other government institutions.

"COVID-19 should be contained without affecting the economic activities in Bengaluru, which resumed recently," the Chief Minister said.

Noting that booth-level officers and volunteers were working to trace contacts and monitor quarantined persons, he said the COVID war room shall have real-time information on the availability of beds in various designated hospitals and facilitate treatment to the infected without loss of time.

A bulletin from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), the city civic body, said there were 298 active containment zones in the city. BBMP Commissioner B H Anil Kumar along with the Chamarajpet Congress MLA B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan visited a few slum areas in the city to take stock of the COVID-19 situation, officials said.

Thiruvananthapuram, Feb 21: A school in the city has allegedly denied admission to a boy whose parents did not fill the religion column in the application form, prompting the Kerala education department to seek a report.

The parents, Naseem and Dhayna, had sought admission for their son to the first standard at the St Mary's school, a government-aided institution. They alleged that school authorities had claimed that registration will not be possible on the education department's 'Sampoorna' portal without filling the 'religion' column.

"We were informed by the school authorities that it was not possible to give admission to our child as we wrote 'nil' in the religion column. They claimed that if nil is mentioned, the admission process will not get registered in the school management software of the education department," Naseem said.

Sampoorna is a school management system project implemented by the Kerala education department to automate the system and process of over 15,000 schools in the state.

The parents later approached the ministry and the Directorate of Public Instruction (DPI) to get further clarification.

"The state government officials denied that there were any issues with the software and confirmed to us that the admission process was going on.

When we approached the school authorities again, they asked us to give in writing that we, the parents will take responsibility of any issues that may occur in the future," Naseem said.

The parents then decided not to enroll their son at the school due to the manner in which the issue was handled by the institution. Reacting swiftly, the state government sought a report from the DPI and the deputy director of the education department on the matter.

"We have asked the DPI and the deputy director of the education department to look into the matter and file a report as soon as possible," Education minister C Raveendranath told PTI. The parents said after the news spread, a school official called them offering admission.

"But we decided not to enroll him there due to the approach of the school authorities," he said.

Naseem runs a catering business after returning from the Gulf.

The school management in a release claimed that they sought a letter in writing from the parents to avoid trouble in the future. "When school authorities asked why the religion column was left blank, the parents said they were not interested in filling that part. The parents have that right.

But most benefits given by the government to school children are based on religion. We just wanted to ensure that the parents take the responsibility in case the student misses out any such benefits in the future," the management said.

School authorities maintained they never denied admission to any student. The parents are now looking for admission for their son in other schools in Thiruvanathapuram.

Ravindranath recently claimed in the state Assembly that over one lakh children in Kerala had left columns relating to caste and religion blank in school admission records during the 2017-18 academic year. In a written reply, he said as many as 1,24,147 children had not filled these columns while enrolling in different classes in government and government-aided schools during the period.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.